So
let's get this straight. If all of Florida's "undervotes" are
counted and a standard of "clear intent of the voter" is
applied – including perforated ballots and those with indentations in
more than one race, indicating a malfunctioning voting machine – Al Gore
won the state by 299 votes.

If a more liberal standard –
counting all ballots with an indentation only on the presidential race –
Gore's victory margin increases to 393 votes.

In a different age, the Miami
Herald's lead might have been:

"Gore won Florida if
all undervotes are counted."

Or the newspaper might have
written a two-part lead also noting that George W. Bush would have
prevailed if stricter standards were applied to the undervotes, requiring
that the so-called chads were partially or completely removed.

Another reasonable lead to the
story would be
that the Florida election – when various irregularities such as the
"butterfly ballot" are ignored – was a virtual dead heat.

Instead, the Herald and its
partner in this unofficial recount, USA Today, focused on the
election outcome that would have occurred if one first subtracted the extra votes
that Gore got in Palm,
Broward and Volusia counties and in 139 precincts in Miami-Dade County.

After subtracting those counties
and precincts, the newspapers hailed a Bush victory by a supposed 1,665
votes, a tally reached by applying the most liberal standard for
undervotes, the appearance of a single indentation.

Why the newspapers picked this
contorted approach as their story lead is a bit murky. But the newspapers
made clear that any contrary analysis -- that Gore would had won if similar
counting standards were applied statewide -- was
left to the domain of those deemed "Gore's
supporters."

The full statewide results of this
recount –
what the voters actually wanted – are not addressed until the 44th
paragraph of the Miami Herald story. That's where a reader finds
out that if the liberal ballot standards were applied statewide – or even if
somewhat more conservative standards were used – Gore would have won.

Odd Reasoning

The stated reasoning for this odd
decision to bury what would seem to be the natural lead – Gore's
apparent victory – was that the Florida Supreme Court supposedly
exempted those three counties and 139 precincts from additional recounts
when the court ruled on Dec. 8 that hand tallies already done would be
included in the statewide totals.

In other words, the two newspapers
focused not on the will of the Florida voters but on how the state court's
last-minute efforts to allow a balanced state recount might have ended if
Bush's lawyers had not rushed to the U.S. Supreme Court and stopped the
recount.

One of several problems with this
reasoning is that the key issue in any election should be the will of the
voters, not the quirks of a legal battle.

Already other findings have shown
that the confusing "butterfly ballots" in Palm Beach and
improper ballot purges by Gov. Jeb Bush's administration cost Gore
thousands of votes that would have made him the clear winner in the state.

There are also the so-called
"overvotes" – ballots where a voter both punched a hole in a
ballot and wrote in the name of the candidate. They are being reviewed by
another group of newspapers. ("Undervotes" are ballots kicked
out by machine counters as showing no vote for president.)

Troubling News Judgment

But possibly even more troubling
in the Miami Herald's news judgment is that the newspaper
effectively rewards George W. Bush, again, for his determined effort to
frustrate a full and accurate count of Florida's ballots.

If Bush had agreed early on to
accept Gore's offer of a statewide recount, state officials would have had
time to fashion a reasonable remedy that would have avoided many of the
discrepancies in county-by-county standards.

Such a remedy was the clear goal
of the Florida Supreme Court when it ruled on Dec. 8 that all 67 counties
– not just the ones in South Florida – should examine their undervotes.
Obvious votes that had been missed by the counting machines were to be added into the totals. Disputed ballots were to
be left to the state courts for a final decision.

Contrary to the Miami Herald
story, the Florida Supreme Court's ruling did not exempt Palm, Broward and
Volusia counties from this effort to achieve a reasonably consistent
statewide standard. The court's ruling stated:

"Only by examining the
contested ballots, which are evidence in the election contest, can a
meaningful and final determination in this election contest be made. …
In addition to the relief requested by appellants (Gore's side) to count
the Miami-Dade undervote, claims have been made by the various appellees
and intervenors (other parties interested in the case) that because this
is a statewide election, statewide
remedies would be called for.

"As we discussed in this
opinion, we agree. While we recognize that time is desperately short, we
cannot in good faith ignore the appellants' right to relief as to their
claims concerning the uncounted votes in Miami-Dade county, nor
can we ignore the correctness of the assertions that any analysis and
ultimate remedy should be made on a statewide basis." [Emphasis
added.]

The Florida Supreme Court left
wide discretion on how to manage the recount and how to achieve some
uniformity in standards to a circuit court judge.

"The circuit court is
directed to enter such orders as are necessary to add any legal votes to
the total statewide certifications and to enter any orders necessary …
in tabulating the ballots and in making a determination of what is a
`legal' vote, the standard to be employed is that established by the
Legislature in our election code which is that the vote shall be counted
as a 'legal' vote if there is 'clear indication of the intent of the
voter'," the ruling stated. [For the full ruling, see www.flcourts.org]

Obstruction

But the next day, Dec. 9, as the
statewide recount was underway, Bush's lawyers raced to Washington and got
five Republican justices on the U.S. Supreme Court to halt the vote
counting to protect Bush from the "irreparable harm" that he
might have suffered if the count went against him.

On Dec. 12, the same five justices
overturned the state court's effort to achieve a balanced recount,
effectively handing the White House to George W. Bush, who had already
lost the national popular vote by more than a half million votes, but eked
ahead in the Electoral College with Florida's 25 electoral votes.

Now, with the handling of this
unofficial recount, the Miami Herald and USA Today have
rewarded Bush again for his obstruction of a full and fair tally of
Florida's ballots.

Possibly, the newspapers' editors
felt that little good would come from highlighting the full statewide
results that indicated a Gore victory.

After all, Bush is president and
there's no way to alter the official results in Florida, no matter how
much those results failed to reflect the will of the state's voters. Plus,
the stock markets are falling and the United States is in a confrontation
with China, the editors might have felt.

But in crafting the latest recount
story as they did, excluding three counties and 139 precincts of a fourth,
to make Bush as clear a winner as possible, is just another reward handed
to the Bush family.

It is a reward for doing
everything possible to thwart the will of the voters in Florida and across
the United States.